Pretty much all of you what you stated is spot on to the realty of the subject. I mentioned in an earlier thread that a couple of years ago when Yamaha announced for the first time in years, they were going to offer a top line Pre-Pro(CX-A5000), I decided to buy it instead of an AVR only because I already had in place two outboard multi-channel amps that I used in conjunction with a previous Yamaha AVR that I was using as a pre-amp. I got the Pre-Pro for roughly the same price as their top of the line AVR. It does have a few extra features, i.e. some extra DSP soundfields, balanced XLR outputs(that I don't use) and what they described as a little better DACs on all the channels and it does offer full 11.2 capability.

The CX-A5000 sounds great, however, if someone asked me other than the few extra features, does it sound better than an upper echelon AVR used as a pre-amp output to outboard amps? I can't honestly say there is any audible difference and as far as any difference in voltage output(which some question about AVRs when used in this capacity), regardless, volume levels were similarly matched between the two.

If I was to do it again in the future, my recommendation would be to anyone whom already had the outboard amps on their rack, but, still wanted most of the the features, channels and sound quality of the separate, purchase the AVR in the upper echelon of the manufacturer of your choice using it as a pre-pro and based on my practical experience, sound quality will be as good as any separates.

Hey Casey, sounds like you know what's in the know. I always like reading your posts, they are informative.

My Onkyo PR-SC5508 just started the HDMI problems that alot of Onkyos are having and I want to get something different. Had enough Onkyo grief to last my lifetime.

I would like another prepro because I have all the XLR cables and music is before movies for us. Do you know if Yamaha is coming out with any new prepros and I noticed that the CX-A5000 does not have XLR outs for the subs. I guess all there really is are Denon and Marantze and Yamaha in my price range.

Is there a receiver or preamp available that supports 9.2.4?I have currently a typical 7.2 set up and would like to add front wide and 4 ceiling speakers for Atmos/DTS:X.Looking online I have found only 9.2.2, 7.2.4. It seems you must give up a pair of surrounds or ceiling speakers in order to use front wides. My preference is a preamp and adding an additional amprather than going with an all in one receiver. thanks, Jeff

Not in anything affordable. I mean you can jump into something like a Trinnov, but that is serious $$$. Now, maybe someone has a 13 speaker receiver or pre/pro out there to do 9.2.4, but nobody seems to have good suggestions for something somewhat affordable. Here is a discussion elsewhere about it..."Best Way to Atmos 9.2.4?"

I think that the appeal of a pre/pro and amps vs. a receiver is that once you invest in the amps, you can more economically upgrade the processing, usually. But you still need to make that amp investment.

Hey Matt, what do you have against immersive audio and overhead speakers? SOOOO many people, consumers/professionals/enthusiast/etc really love Atmos and now DTS:X is getting rave reviews after finally hitting homes yesterday. Now, if you are just saying "make sure that your main 5.1/7.1/9.1 setup is good first" then that makes complete sense, but it just seems like you think that Atmos and DTS:X are snake-oil or a fad like curved screens based off of your posts which is why I ask.

I think I found my answer looking around the Yamaha site. The CX-A5100 looks like the ticket.

I was going to suggest that, however, you beat me to the punch. Other than Dolby Atmos and the forthcoming DTX upgrade, not much difference from the 5000 and in my case I am not going to spend a boatload of money on a new 5100 for just those few extras, that is, of course, unless someone is interested in buying my 5000 and give me a good price, otherwise with my pre-pro,amps,speaker,sub set-up is about as good as it gets. I just purchased a new LG 4K monitor, so I think I am going to devote my next HT purchase on a new UHD player.

I am waiting, though, since I have had great experience with Oppo players I am going to wait until their new models come available(whenever that is, no rush).

Hey Matt, what do you have against immersive audio and overhead speakers? SOOOO many people, consumers/professionals/enthusiast/etc really love Atmos and now DTS:X is getting rave reviews after finally hitting homes yesterday. Now, if you are just saying "make sure that your main 5.1/7.1/9.1 setup is good first" then that makes complete sense, but it just seems like you think that Atmos and DTS:X are snake-oil or a fad like curved screens based off of your posts which is why I ask.

You have heard me all wrong. I personally don't see Atmos or DTS-X as being exclusively being about overhead speakers. That is the common thought with many that unless you have overhead then you don't have atmos.

If you take the time to really read the Dolby white page about Atmos, you would see that it's more about how the sound can be addressed inside the cinema with each speaker rather than having just a large array mass of speakers that act has a single channel that you have really no control over.

Once you can swallow that part, then Atmos makes perfect sense for everything. Now, I in my own way don't personally see a need for overhead speakers as much as I see a greater need for more speakers around you. I feel that in more movies and shows that I watch I would get a far better rendition of the movie from 11.2.0 atmos sound that I would from having 7.2.4 sound.

That is just my take and I mentally feel that more accurate sound on the horizontal plane will trump having less accurate but gaining a vertical plane as well.

What I would like to see is fully assignable floating amp channels in AVRs. If I am limited to 7 or 9 channels of onboard amplification, and must add external amps, I would prefer to use the onboard power for height channels and outboard amps for driving LCRs. I think the only way to do this currently is with a full seperate system -current gen Marantz 8802 with external amps or the like. Anyone have experience with this?

I am not thrilled with the prospect of using my current expensive power amps for mere height channels. Its starting to look like my time with AVRs is coming to an end with my eventual immersive upgrade.

Hey Matt, what do you have against immersive audio and overhead speakers? SOOOO many people, consumers/professionals/enthusiast/etc really love Atmos and now DTS:X is getting rave reviews after finally hitting homes yesterday. Now, if you are just saying "make sure that your main 5.1/7.1/9.1 setup is good first" then that makes complete sense, but it just seems like you think that Atmos and DTS:X are snake-oil or a fad like curved screens based off of your posts which is why I ask.

You have heard me all wrong. I personally don't see Atmos or DTS-X as being exclusively being about overhead speakers. That is the common thought with many that unless you have overhead then you don't have atmos.

If you take the time to really read the Dolby white page about Atmos, you would see that it's more about how the sound can be addressed inside the cinema with each speaker rather than having just a large array mass of speakers that act has a single channel that you have really no control over.

Once you can swallow that part, then Atmos makes perfect sense for everything. Now, I in my own way don't personally see a need for overhead speakers as much as I see a greater need for more speakers around you. I feel that in more movies and shows that I watch I would get a far better rendition of the movie from 11.2.0 atmos sound that I would from having 7.2.4 sound.

That is just my take and I mentally feel that more accurate sound on the horizontal plane will trump having less accurate but gaining a vertical plane as well.

Ah, I see what you are saying. I experienced a nice sound improvement when I borrowed an Atmos capable receiver for a few days while my current receiver was off for repairs. I even posted on here a couple of times in a couple of different threads that even without overhead speakers, there was a noticeable improvement with sound imaging around the listening space with Atmos compared to the non-Atmos track... All without overhead speakers.

With that said, I am also probably one of the most versed people in Atmos specifications on these forums. I've read/heard almost every Dolby tech bulletin, white paper, layout spec, as well as industry guru insights to "real world" installation, best bang-for-your-buck installation tips, etc... Also, after experiencing Atmos both in a single linear plane (7.1),several full spec installations (7.1.4), and even a few that took it beyond that ($$$$ 9.1.4, 9.1.6, and 11.1.6), I can still tell you that while there is a great audio improvement going to Atmos even without overhead speakers, there is still a lot of the experience that is missing without the overheads. They do more than just provide sound from above, but allow multiple sounds to come from multiple "layers" in the room at the same time (2 distinct sounding airplanes flying at different heights and distances, but both sweeping from the front to the side to the back, and you can actually hear them as coming from different space inside the room.

With that said, I do think that an "ideal" for a room already with a 7.1 setup would be a 9.1.4 or possibly 9.1.6 configuration with the extra x.x.2 being similar to front heights, so possibly also considered to be 11.1.4 vs. calling it 9.1.6...

There is still more data coming out of the primary sound plane that is what we all use for 5.x, 7.x, 9.x than the amount of sound coming from overhead speakers. I believe that you are saying the same (and I think that I agree about that previously in this thread as well).

Thanks for your clarification on what you meant. I am still waiting for the time when Sony get the technology to "beam" audio signals straight into your brain... Sure, that may seem a little like Jim Carrey's rendition of 'the Joker' in Batman Forever, but Sony has held a patent on the idea for a number of years now. Beam the audio right into our brains, and we will no longer need a dozen or so speakers.

Nick you have it exactly right.The more speakers, the more immersive surround sound will be.Overhead speakers very much add to that surround effect because sound is not localized to an exact point but rather extrapolated by our ears from various sources/echoes to determine a source point. Sound is a change in air pressure and air exists all AROUND our heads (the animated gif is a good example of how sound pressure moves and yet may not move).http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/acoustics/chapter1_sound.shtml

Although the concept of Atmos adds a bit more of a minimal sound effect with ceiling speakers, it still fills in a very important perspective to which our ears (or any animals' ears) are attuned (i.e. sound reflections).

The best example is trying to find that airplane in the sky out in the backyard. It sounds like it is coming from the west but because of the distance from our ears, the echoes off so many surfaces, it could be coming slightly more from the east.This type of effect can only be attained by adding more speakers in a HT setting.I suppose future Atmos derivatives could try adding speakers to the floor as well but the ceiling seems to be the most obvious place to start.

I'm onboard the idea though that the number of speakers being introduced as some new "standard" for HT is getting stupid.Most people i know still don't have a decent 3.1 setup.Even some people i know who have a 5.1 system have no idea what Atmos is (when asked).

Well, I went and ordered the Yamaha CX-A5100 yesterday and cost me about a months wage but very happy with the decision. I had a Yamaha disk changer years ago and it was built like a tank, so I will probably get another one just to play my CDs and leave the Oppo for movie duty. Oh, and thanks Casey for opening my eyes to this prepro.